|
Recommended Policies, Actions, Allies, and Related Subjects
The overall goal within the Colorado River Basins must be to improve the environmental conditions throughout the entire watershed. Many activities, such as improving the efficient water use in all areas, providing that some of the conserved water is used for instream flow, can aid in reaching that goal. It is important for Sierra Club members to keep this overarching goal in mind and ask if a particular local action would not only benefit one area but also would fit in with, or benefit, other initiatives within the watershed. With that in mind, the Sierra Club Colorado River Task Force has ranked the following issues as most important in descending order. Although individual members may have ordered some of the issues somewhat differently, all agreed that these are the issues in most need of action. The rankings are intended as a guide for Sierra Club activists and should not be taken as reflecting the environmental importance of the various issues. Rather, rankings reflect many other perceptions and considerations, such as: the perceived immediacy of the issue; the probability that corrective action is politically, socially and economically feasible; the likelihood that the action would have the desired effect; and value to both the specific and to the general ecosystem. For example, Glen Canyon restoration is an issue that is dependent on the completion of the Citizens Environmental Assessment (CEA) being conducted by the Glen Canyon Institute. Because the CEA is not yet available, it is not clear what actions should be taken at this time, although completion of the CEA and forestalling attempts to pipe water from Lake Powell to the burgeoning population of southern Utah are of immediate importance. Colorado River Delta Restoration The largest part of the Delta that is amenable to reclamation and restoration is in Mexico; the majority of the Delta in the U.S. has been devoted to intensive agriculture for years. The needs of the Delta are simple; it needs water, but not very large amounts. Based on a series of events in recent years, there is fairly convincing evidence that guaranteeing the Delta 32,000 af in most years and 260,000 af every fourth year are the minimum required to restore a substantial part of the area. Although these amounts are minimums deduced from natural events over the past decade, if these amounts plus the occasional and unpredictable water increase resulting from El Niño rains can be protected for river flow, not only the ecology of the Delta but even that of the Sea of Cortez will show dramatic improvement. For example, following the recent El Niño years of 1997 and 1998, the shrimp harvest in the Sea Of Cortez rose dramatically (6). Sea turtles, pelicans, and the world's most endangered porpoise, the vaquita, are among the many varieties of animal life still clinging to existence at the head of the Sea of Cortez, where the Colorado River used to dump tons of nutrients. Within the Delta, the largest remaining wetland depends on channeled runoff from irrigated fields near Yuma, Arizona. The Cienega de Santa Clara at the end of the Main Outlet Drain Extension from the Wellton-Mohawk irrigation project survives as a living memory of a once huge expanse of marsh. However, the Cienega de Santa Clara is under the constant fatal threat that the Yuma Desalting Plant, built but mothballed, will be put into operation. The area represents an outstanding - but quickly vanishing - opportunity for ecological restoration if we can focus attention on this overlooked part of the planet. The small water volume required to partially, but significantly, restore vast areas of the Delta cannot easily be taken from the now depleted Colorado; yet, there is perhaps nowhere else where so little expenditure of resources could provide so great an ecological gain. There are a series of problems that deserve immediate and strenuous attention to effect a salutary result. 1) The value of restoring this superb ecosystem must be accorded significant value by the political powers in the U.S. and Mexico. Within this context, it seems reasonable to expect the U.S. to take a leading role in the resuscitation of this trans-border ecosystem, if for no other reason than that it has destroyed the U.S. segment for the sake of urban population growth and irrigated agriculture. 2) Relatively minor conservation efforts must be put in place in the U.S., which controls the river system, so that water for the Delta can be guaranteed delivery. 3) Mexico must agree that these excess waters will not be diverted but will be allowed to flow freely across the Delta to the Sea of Cortez. 4) The Yuma Desalting Plant must not be put into operation, as it would destroy La Cienega forever, a far greater cost than the limited economic benefits that operation would provide. Actions: Public Education, Political Pressure, EIS
Commenting, Advocating International Cooperation, Lawsuits. Endangered Species Issues Dam construction and out-of-stream diversions have been shown to be a major cause of the decline of native fish species worldwide. Drying up and modification of riparian habitat have also threatened many terrestrial species. In the mid-seventies, after the passage of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), four fish were listed as endangered in the Upper Colorado River Basin: the Colorado pikeminnow, formerly known as the squawfish; razorback sucker; bonytail sucker; and humpback chub. It took a lawsuit to get critical habitat identified for these species. In 1988, in the Upper Basin, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), the states of Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado, water users, and environmentalists agreed to work together on a Recovery Implementation Program (RIP) to bring these species back from the brink of extinction. The Program includes: efforts to provide adequate flows within critical habitat reaches; restoration of habitat; expanding the use of habitat by removing some diversion structures and by building fish ladders around others; removing non-native fish who are preying on, or competing for habitat with, natives; and stocking hatchery-bred natives. Although the Recovery Program is multifaceted and wide-ranging, it does not specifically address water quality. The Upper Basin RIP and a separate but similar effort to recover the pikeminnow and the razorback sucker in the San Juan River have broad support and are believed to be working, although many of the components of these programs have only been implemented in the last few years. These programs must be carefully monitored by conservation and other outdoor activists to ensure their continued integrity. The endangered species recovery program in the Lower Basin, the Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP), has been extensively criticized by the environmental community. Major deficiencies of the MSCP are that it basically seeks to lock in current operations for up to 50 years, ignores species in Mexico, and fails to secure even a fraction of the flood spills, which major users are currently unable to divert, for ecological benefits. Perhaps, the primary deficiency of the MSCP, in contrast to the Upper Basin RIP, is that it is not based on consensus with inclusion of the environmental community. The MSCP requires extensive modification, but any changes that do not lead to the protection and improvement of water quality to sustain migratory bird populations may constitute a violation of the provisions of U.S. laws and treaties that govern migratory birds and endangered and threatened species. Note that these laws may also apply to alteration of the flows to the Delta and clearly apply to restoration efforts at the Salton Sea. In fact, the Salton Sea, which is a haven for migratory birds, should either be included in the MSCP or have a similar, parallel program. As stipulated earlier in this report, however, although Salton Sea restoration is ecologically valuable, such restoration must not use direct flows from the Colorado River, as the river system, itself, is severely overstressed. At present, approaches to a solution for the Salton Sea rely on massive engineering projects, typical of the old western approach to water supply. The approaches being considered focus on unproven methods for salt removal or on importing water that may or may not be available. The currently proposed fixes do not include the watershed wide changes that are necessary for the development of a sustainable system without massive annual maintenance costs. The problems of the Salton Sea demand a creative partnership between water districts, farmers, and environmentalists to develop a sustainable solution. Many other areas within the Colorado River Basin have also placed a host of fish, riparian, and terrestrial species in jeopardy because of ecosystem changes caused by water diversion, depletion, and dam construction, all of which have led to a fragmented ecosystem with few remaining parts offering suitable refuge. For example, the Gila/Salt River complex in southern Arizona is particularly critical for many neotropical songbirds as they migrate in the spring from their South and Central America wintering grounds to their breeding and nesting territories in the U.S. and Canada. Dewatering is a significant problem, and threats continue at an alarming rate due to the proliferation of retirement communities and winter homes in the Gila/Salt River basin. Actions: Participation in Recovery Program Processes,
Public Education, EIS Commenting, Letters to the Editors of newspapers and magazines. Instream Flow The Sierra Club has a comprehensive water policy intended to apply to all stream and river systems. On the specific subject of water conservation, this policy states, in part, “Programs should be pursued to improve the water retention capacity of the land, reduce water consumption, and promote water recycling.” Within the Colorado River basins, water conservation has not been intended to reduce consumption but rather has overwhelmingly been a method to extend consumptive water use to new housing and additional agricultural land with no environmental or ecological benefit. In the arid Southwest with a main river system that is severely depleted and over-allocated, the environmental measure of water conservation depends on the commitment of some of the conserved water to enhance the streams and rivers. Instream flow considerations have taken a back seat to other interests throughout the long period of extensive water development in the West. Insufficient minimum stream flow is, along with the severely altered hydrograph, the major cause of the environmental problems in the Colorado and other river basins. In recent years, there has been a noticeable shift in public interest, and support for keeping water in stream systems continues to rise. Sufficient water in the channel is important for maintaining fisheries and other wildlife habitat, preserving wetland areas, maintaining channel dynamics, and for recreation. Much work remains however, in educating the residents and decision-makers of these states that not only is there no remaining water available for new depletions but also that some water must be returned to the streams. Local water developers blame federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act, and section 404 of the Clean Water Act for preventing them from taking more water from the stream system, but these laws were passed as a result of changing societal values in the United States. In addition, the management of storage facilities through dam operations, often provides flows when they are of little ecological use, or even detrimental, and exacerbates the problems stemming from a lack of water. The absence of clearly defined instream flow regimens is particularly serious in a region that is known to suffer from periods of severe drought. Even the high mountain snowpack, which provides the vast majority of the water in the basin, is subject to routine drought conditions where snowpack levels may drop to 60% of average. Indeed, the extreme variability of water in the basin was at the core of the Colorado River Compact, but, much to the detriment of the environment, instream flows were not considered at the time. Public concern for water remaining in stream systems in the arid West has spawned several innovative methods for keeping water in the stream while at the same time not completely unraveling the basic tenets of western water law. These methods vary depending upon the availability of the water supply, on the other demands for water in the tributaries, and on state laws. Several western states now have instream flow laws on the books, which recognize water in the channel as a beneficial use under the prior appropriation doctrine of allocating water supplies to uses. In areas where the state believes there are unappropriated water supplies, new water rights can be filed which have a current day priority date. These water rights are then administered by the state in the same fashion as other water rights. In a few areas where the water supplies have been fully allocated to other uses, mechanisms for transfer of water rights from consumptive uses to retaining that water in the stream have been developed. In Oregon, a Water Bank has been developed where water saved through water conservation is shared between the current water right holder and the state that places the water in the Water Bank, and the supply remains in the stream rather than being diverted for some other consumptive use. Water markets for the sale of water rights among bidders have been developed in Colorado and California. However, New Mexico still does not consider instream flow as a beneficial use, and Utah has very limited avenues for allocating water to instream flow. Besides working within states' allocation systems, there are several federal resource management tools available to improve aquatic and riparian conditions degraded by flow impairments on public lands. Many federal agencies have legal authority and the statutory obligation to establish instream flow protection measures in special-use authorizations (permits). The Forest Service Organic Act of 1897b lists "securing favorable conditions of water flows" as the first purpose of forest reserves. The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (MUSY)c lists outdoor recreation, watershed, and wildlife and fish as uses for which the National Forests are managed. The 1976 National Forest Management Act (NFMA)d recognizes that the National Forests serve a multitude of public purposes, such as providing recreation, scenic and aesthetic values, and preserving fish and wildlife habitat and diversity. Section 505 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), also enacted in 1976, provides that federal agencies must include terms and conditions in all rights-of-way to federal lands that will "minimize damage to scenic and aesthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat and otherwise protect the environment”.e Under guidance issued by EPA, flow-impaired streams can and should be listed on the 303(d) list and TMDLs implemented. And, in 1999, several Departments adapted a new rule called the Unified Federal Policy to Ensure Watershed Protection. A remaining pitfall in these and other attempts to improve instream flows is that the goals tend to focus on minimum acceptable flows rather than on optimal flows. Actions: Lobby State Legislatures to place a premium on
instream flow, Comment on Water Development, EIS Commenting, Monitor and Comment on permit
requests to the Army Corps of Engineers under sections 401, 402, and 404 of the Clean
Water Act, Comment on Biological Opinions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Comment
on Forest Management Plan Revisions, Seek TMDL listings based on low flows resulting from
diversions, Letters to the Editor. Grand Canyon Ecosystem Restoration The Grand Canyon is recognized worldwide as one of Earth’s great natural wonders. Unfortunately, the developers of the southwestern United States and the framers of the Colorado Compact gave this extraordinary ecosystem no significant importance in their plans and deliberations. This cavalier ignorance culminated in the authorization by Congress to build the Glen Canyon Dam. As with other dam-reservoir facilities, Glen Canyon Dam has smoothed the peaks and valleys of the natural hydrograph and replaced silt-laden warm flows with clear cold water. Perhaps nowhere else on the river has dam construction and operation had such a profound effect. The change in the timing of high flows and the absence of silt have eroded the beaches and erased the normal accretion of sandbars. The cold water has endangered the survival of native species and provided advantage to alien ones. In the last few years, the deleterious effects of human action along the river have been realized, and steps are being taken to ameliorate the damage. The only currently available avenue for improving the Grand Canyon ecosystem is by altering the operation of Glen Canyon Dam. Experimental steady low summer flows are currently being done through the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) for the Colorado River. Although it is far too soon to evaluate these tests, there has been noticeable water warming for at least 15 miles below the dam. It seems unlikely that changes in dam operation can compensate for the lack of silt, which remains trapped along the upstream edges of Lake Powell, the reservoir behind Glen Canyon Dam. The framers of the Colorado River Compact recognized the extreme seasonal variability in water supply in the basin and developed a ten year average as the basis for the delivery of water by the Upper Basin states at Lee Ferry. The location of Glen Canyon Dam just upstream from this measuring point is important, the upper states would argue, in their ability to meet the delivery obligations of the compact, and the storage in Glen Canyon provides "insurance" for the Upper Basin to make its deliveries when the inflow to Glen Canyon is much diminished due to drought conditions. A thorough analysis of the ramifications of drought on the basin was completed by the Powell Consortium in 1995 , and suggests that much of the hardship would fall on the Upper Basin states in spite of the existence of Glen Canyon Dam. Actions: Active Participation in Deliberations on the
Annual Operating Plan (AOP) and on Dam Reoperation, Public Education, Advocate an EIS on
Glen Canyon Dam that includes the possibility of decommissioning, Oppose any attempts to
limit scientific study of the ecosystem and alternative dam management options. California 4.4 Plan Of the water that must be delivered by the Upper Basin states to the Lower Basin, California has for many years been using more than its share. With the tremendous growth of the Las Vegas area, the completion of the Central Arizona Project (CAP), and the innovative use of interstate and intrastate water banking in Arizona, the states of Nevada and Arizona are approaching their full allocations, which is forcing California to come to grips with the necessity of decreasing its water consumption. California's allocation of the Colorado River is 4.4 maf/yr. California's diversions from the river have regularly exceeded this and have been as much as 5.2 maf/yr. The six other basin states have insisted that California implement a "4.4 Plan." To do this will require the use of water saved in the agricultural distribution system, for example, by reducing seepage, to slake the thirst of the cities in southern California. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) is attempting to accomplish this by funding water efficiency measures within the IID (Imperial Irrigation District) and CVWD (Coachella Valley Water District). MWD has invested $105 million for water conservation, including lining of the trunk canals, in the IID, and the California legislature appropriated $230 million in 1998 to line the All American Canal to reduce seepage losses. While conserving water for use in California, this lining will result in the loss of more than 64,000 acre-feet of seepage water to Mexico. These actions will allow more conserved water to go toward municipal use. Except for the possibility of monetary gain through selling the water to populated areas, there is little or no incentive for irrigation districts to conserve water. The lining of the All American and Coachella canals to stop seepage is a new example of invoking a simple solution to one problem and at the same time exacerbating another. In this case, it now appears that retarding seepage along these canals may contribute to more substantial wetland destruction and to more loss of water to Mexico than previously thought. There is significant pressure from the other basin states for California to develop and adhere to a plan that will reduce water consumption in California to 4.4 maf/yr by 2015. It is, however, not clear that any such plan can be put in place without causing major disruption of California’s existing economy. Continued population growth with forecasts of 50 million Californians within 30 years will, if even close to accurate, stress the current system beyond the breaking point. The Bureau of Reclamation is allowing California “a soft landing” on the implementation of its 4.4 Plan by developing Interim Surplus Criteria. This will permit additional deliveries to California until 2015, unless severe drought occurs. Actions: Public Education, Lobbying and similar
activities to Mandate Water Conservation in California Law, Pressure to Develop Water
Conservation Incentives, EIS Commenting. Transbasin Diversions Transbasin diversions have been the hallmark of western water development. Each diversion moves water from a sparsely populated basin to serve the people in another basin and in doing so drastically alters the ecology of both basins. Few transbasin diversions are currently under consideration, if only because there are few remaining possibilities. Those that deserve continued attention are the Homestake II, Uncompahgre's AB Lateral, Union Park, and Anima-La Plata Projects in Colorado and the Gooseberry Narrows Project in Utah. Actions: Public Education, Letters to the Editor,
Lobbying Congress, Lawsuits, Grassroots Organizing. Water Quality The Clean Water Act contains a provision that requires the states to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the stream segments in their states that have been identified as impaired or not meeting their prescribed use due to water quality concerns. The negligence of the states in getting these TMDLs developed has spawned numerous lawsuits by environmental groups to force EPA to demand that states develop TMDLs as quickly as possible. The volume of stream flow is an important factor in determining the load amount that the stream can accommodate. The process of developing TMDLs may provide another avenue for getting states to recognize the need for some portion of the natural flow to remain in a channel to improve water quality. Two of the major threats to water quality in the Colorado River Basin are salts and selenium from irrigation runoff. Mancos shale soils, which contain selenium, are prevalent throughout the basin. Water erosion and leaching through these soils mobilize selenium and other salts. Congressionally funded salinity control programs are being implemented in those areas where the loading is the worst. Since selenium is usually found in the same geological formations as salts, there is an effort to give some priority to efforts that can control both. There are many other threats to water quality in the Colorado River basins. These include both agricultural and urban run-off, leaching of pollutants from mine wastes and nuclear waste storage, and the effects of logging and poor grazing practices. It is important that Sierra Club activists diligently monitor and work to minimize water pollution from these sources. Actions: Participate in Collaborative Process to reduce
Non-Point Source Pollution (Watershed Initiatives). Glen Canyon Restoration The concept of restoring Glen Canyon by decommissioning Glen Canyon Dam has gained significant prominence in the past few years. Some believe that had the small cadre of environmentalists argued against the dam in the 1960’s, it would not have been built. Many are of the opinion that a canyon of unique magnificence should not be buried under a reservoir of questionable value. Politicians as prominent as Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona have expressed regret at having ever built the dam. Some years after leaving the Senate, Goldwater said that if he had the chance to vote on Glen Canyon again, “I’d vote against it. Because I’ve become convinced that, while water is important, particularly to those of us who live in the desert, it’s not that important.” The Upper Basin states vigorously oppose any thought of decommissioning Glen Canyon Dam. These states see the reservoir as a guarantor for their ability to deliver water to the Lower Basin, as prescribed under the Colorado River Compact, throughout the course of a relatively severe drought. On the other hand, the validity of Glen Canyon Dam’s ability to guarantee water delivery has been called into question by recent studies.9 In addition, the dam provides cheap, subsidized power, and its reservoir is a popular tourist attraction. Because Glen Canyon Dam was built prior to NEPA, the Citizens Environmental Assessment (CEA), currently being prepared by the Glen Canyon Institute, is the first comprehensive environmental study to examine the ecological ramifications of the dam and to include the alternative of not having the dam, along with other scenarios. The value of careful data gathering and thoughtful analysis to further discussions about the dam is the reason that the Task Force fully supports the efforts of the Glen Canyon Institute. In 1996, the Sierra Club Board of Directors passed a resolution, which states, “The Sierra Club supports the draining of the reservoir behind Glen Canyon Dam.” The Task Force advocates an EIS on Glen Canyon Dam that includes dam decommissioning as a considered alternative to current and future operations. Comprehensive studies such as the Glen Canyon Institute’s Citizens EA and a full EIS can generate the information required to make intelligent strategic decisions about Glen Canyon Dam. There are strong environmental arguments for significantly altering the dam operating plan, now. Two of the most prominent of these are the curtailment of evaporative losses from Lake Powell reservoir and restoring the extraordinary Grand Canyon ecosystem. Unfortunately, since the dam was constructed before NEPA, modification of dam operations to ameliorate ecological damage depends entirely on the Adaptive Management Working Group (AMWG). The Colorado River Task Force supports the work of the AMWG. The intent of the water district in the St. George, Utah area to pipe water directly from Lake Powell to support continued population growth in the area is the most serious current threat to the possibility of eventual decommissioning. Additional pipelines that are being discussed to bring Lake Powell water south into Arizona to serve existing communities, new population growth, and industrial uses, including the Black Mesa coal mines, pose a similar threat. If a large population becomes substantially dependent on the existence of Lake Powell, the social utility of the dam will be significantly increased. Actions: Aid in developing the CEA, Vigorously oppose efforts to
transfer water directly from Lake Powell for local municipal and
industrial use. Advocate an EIS on Glen Canyon Dam that includes the
possibility of decommissioning, Oppose any attempts to limit scientific
study of the ecosystem and alternative dam management options. Facility Transfers and Water Exchanges When Vice President Gore introduced the concept of "reinventing the government," seven years ago, it included privatizing or selling-off some federal assets. Included in this concept were some small, single-purpose Reclamation projects. Several years ago, the Sierra Club, along with several other organizations, participated in developing guidelines to help us evaluate potential proposals. These guidelines are very useful in helping us decide whether we can support or oppose proposed transfers. The Colorado River Task Force endorsed these guidelines, and they are attached to this report. Reclamation also developed policies to guide it and to establish procedures for transferring facilities to their beneficiaries. Since project transfers require federal legislation, we have utilized these guidelines to oppose several pieces of legislation that were not in the best interest of the public, the environment, or the U.S. Treasury. The issue of privatization is becoming increasingly important as questions arise concerning its being in conflict with the public trust. Water is a public resource that has been made available to serve both general public needs and private profit-making interests. When the changing public interest and traditional private interest come in conflict, questions concerning the ownership of this public resource become extremely important. In the West, the prior appropriation doctrine in every state is a right to use but not a right to own the water outright. Nevertheless, in most cases, water rights are comparable to property rights and can be bought, sold, or moved. These issues are of environmental concern. For example, promoting the private sale of conserved water, a public resource, to encourage agricultural efficiencies often seems to be in conflict with the public trust and with notions of environmental justice. On the other hand, if water marketing and exchanges between public and private or between private and private entities incorporates public concerns, such exchanges can be a powerful tool for resource management and be consistent with public needs. A second example that is of interest is the fact that, when Colorado River water enters canals, it is often considered to be private. Is it reasonable that fishing in public waters be forbidden in many of these canals? In practice, by pretending that the canal is not fish habitat, the portion of the river in the canal sidesteps the Clean Water Act. Our biggest concern about facility transfers is to be assured that their operations will be in strict compliance with federal environmental laws. The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies and Trout Unlimited's Western Water Project have both made commitments to be our watchdog in Washington to protect our concerns on this issue. Actions: Advocate and Initiate Public Discussion of
Criteria, Lobby Congress, EIS Commenting, Raise Local Concern, Letters to the Editor. (6) Galindo-Bect, M., Glenn, E., Page, H., Fitzsimmons, K., Galindo-Bect, L., Hernandez-Ayon, J., Petty, R., Garcia-Hernandez, J., and D. Moore. 2000. Penaeid shrimp landings in the upper Gulf of California in relation to Colorado River freshwater discharge. Fisheries Bulletin 98: 222-225. (9) "Severe Sustained Drought, Managing the Colorado River System in Times of Water Shortage". 1995. The Powell Consortium, Arizona Water Resources Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. (b) 16 USC p.475 (1994) Photo: Lava Falls from Toroweap Overlook, Grand Canyon National Park, AZ. Copyright Stephen Trimble. Report Main | Background
| Conclusions Up to Top |
